|
|
|
|
|
by imtringued
1898 days ago
|
|
For the sake of the argument. Consider a planet inhabited exactly by two humans. They would be in extreme poverty by our standards and there would be no rich class to contrast them against. Ah, it becomes obvious now, poverty is a product of nature. You are born poor by nature. Your children are born poor as well. Those 2 humans give birth to 6 children. 2 of them die because of a disease. Are the children who grew up to adulthood the rich class? Repeat this until there are 100 people. They organize, they build and invent things. The rich are born, not by nature but by society. Wealth is a product of society. |
|
Not true. Our standards define poverty either as the inability to afford lower-tier living expenses, or as the inability to ensure an income higher than a certain quantille of the population's income distribution (typically around 60% of the median income )
Both interpretations of poverty imply that none of your hypothetical examples represent poverty.